Social Identity Theory (SIT) Flashcards
Social Identity Theory - Tajfel 1971
The social identity theory argues that a person has not just one “personal self” but rather several social selves that correspond to group membership. According to the theory, we need to understand who we are and know our value in a social context.
Social categorisation - The process of classifying people into groups based on similar characteristics.
Social identification - This is the process of adopting the norms of the group and taking on the characteristics of the group.
Social comparison - A means of justifying their group membership.
Positive distinctiveness - When we favour the traits of our in-group, even if we did not necessarily choose to be a part of the group ourselves.
Study 1 (SIT) - Intergroup Discrimination Tajfel 1971
Aim: To investigate how social categorisation affects intergroup behaviour
Participants: 48 makes aged 14-15 from the same state school in Bristol, UK. The boys were randomly allocated to 3 groups consisting of 16 boys per group.
Procedure: Once they had been randomly assigned to a group the boys were shown slides of paintings by two artists. They were told that their preferences for one of these two artists would form the basis of their assignment to a group. The boys were not told which other boys were members of their group. Participants were then shown, individually, to a cubicle and asked to assign money (virtual, not real) to members of either the boy’s in-group (based on their previously stated artist preference) or out-group (preference for the other artist). The researchers set up the trials in a randomised design which tested the boys on a range of measures, including whether they would opt for maximum join profit, maximum in-group profit, or maximum difference between in-group and out-group.
Results: The boys made decisions which highlighted a preference for the in-group and discrimination towards the out-group. They tended to favour the in-group members with higher rewards and to work in a way which maximised the difference between in-group and out-group, often at the expense of possible maximum joint profit. This favouritism was based solely on the mere idea of the other group rather than on any actual interaction between in-group and out-group members and the difference between the groups was minimal. i.e. supposed preference for one artist over another.
Conclusion: In-group favouritism can be manipulated via the minimal group paradigm in which participants use social categorisation to make decisions.
Evaluation of study 1: Intergroup discrimination by Tajfel (1971)
This experiment had a high level of control and confounding variables were minimised. However, the task the participants were asked to was highly artificial; the study lacks ecological validity, as this may not reflect actual behaviour in a naturalistic setting.
The boys may have shown demand characteristics, trying to please the researcher and they may have interpreted the task as competitive and tried to “win”
The procedure can be replicated to establish reliability.
Lastly, there was sampling bias present, meaning that the study was carried out on British schoolboys and It is difficult to generalise the results to women, adults or other cultures.
Study 2 (SIT): Social Categorisation and emergencies Drury’s (2009)
Aim: to determine whether the preposition that you are part of a group would make you more likely to help people in the group in an emergency situation.
Participants: The sample was made up of 40 students from the University of Sussex with an age range of 20 to 25 years. Seven participants were male - the remainder was female.
Procedure: The participants used a virtual reality simulator to experience an emergency in the London metro.In this situation, they would have to escape a fire. In order to do this, they could help people or
push them out of their way as they tried to make it to safety.Before starting the simulation, the participants were asked to read a news report about a fire in the King Cross metro where 31 people died. The group-identification condition participants were presented with a dangerous emergency after being at a football match, and the on individual-identification conditions participants were presented with the same emergency however it happens after a day of shopping.
Results: To make sure that social identity was salient, in the group-identification situation, the people in
the VR simulation wore vests of the same colour, but in the individual identification, the vests
were different colours. To also make sure that it was not simply the size of the crowd that
affected the participants, in one condition there was a small crowd (8 other people) and in the
other, it was a larger crowd (32 other people).
Conclusion: It was found that those participants with a high in-group identification gave more help and pushed
others less than those who did not have in-group identification. Crowd size did not affect the
amount of help given.
Evaluation of study 2: Social categorisation and emergencies Drury’s (2009)
The study has high internal validity, as it could control for extraneous variables.
The study had high mundane realism. Although it was “virtual” it still was highly realistic.
However, it has low ecological validity because at no time did the participants feel that
their lives were in danger.
The study is replicable, allowing us to test the reliability of the results. The study also appears to
confirm the findings of Levine's research.
The study avoids causing undue stress or deceiving the participants; the study is highly ethical.
Evaluation of Social Identity Theory
- The theory is testable under lab conditions, but it is not really highly testable under naturalistic conditions.This leads to the problem of often low ecological validity.
- There are several studies that can be used to support the theory.
- In addition, there is evidence from other approaches that supports the theory. For example, there seems
to be biological support for the theory. - The theory has high heuristic validity - that is, it can be used to explain a variety of human behaviours,
ranging from how we evacuate in an emergency situation to origins of sexuality to origins of aggressive
behaviour and violence. - There are several constructs that are difficult to measure - for example, the salience of one’s social identity, the boundaries of identities or one’s level of self-esteem related to a social identity.
- Although the early research was conducted only on boys, today research has been done on a diverse
sample of gender, sexuality, socioeconomic status and culture. The theory does not portray a particular
bias. - We all have a lot of different social identities. The theory does not predict well which identity will determine our behaviour.
